Lewis Hamilton jumped into the lead at the start of the Chinese Grand Prix to never give it away again. Pole sitter Valtteri Bottas held on to second and finished there, securing yet another Mercedes 1-2 as Ferrari's Vettel had to settle for third.

Has anyone seen any reasoning for why Ferrari put Leclerc on Mediums for the final 13 laps? I'd have expected the softs to last that long and give him enough advantage to catch Verstappen, so does it imply the Ferrari was devouring its tyres and they didn't think softs would last 13 laps to the end of the Grand Prix?

His commentary is usually knowledgeable and on point, he is the most recent world champion (other than Hamilton), the only commentator who has raced against the majority of the current grid, and who has personal experience with modern F1. He understands strategy and the mental strain drivers are under. I can’t think of anyone better qualified for the job.

Has anyone seen any reasoning for why Ferrari put Leclerc on Mediums for the final 13 laps? I'd have expected the softs to last that long and give him enough advantage to catch Verstappen, so does it imply the Ferrari was devouring its tyres and they didn't think softs would last 13 laps to the end of the Grand Prix?

i believe they had only left a couple of used softs, and the softs weren't that good as the hard tyres

Has anyone seen any reasoning for why Ferrari put Leclerc on Mediums for the final 13 laps? I'd have expected the softs to last that long and give him enough advantage to catch Verstappen, so does it imply the Ferrari was devouring its tyres and they didn't think softs would last 13 laps to the end of the Grand Prix?

i believe they had only left a couple of used softs, and the softs weren't that good as the hard tyres

Interesting, since Red Bull put Gasly onto the Softs (based on Pirelli's tyre chart they also only had used sets left) - but I guess Red Bull were only going for a glory run and didn't have to worry about them dropping off a cliff afterwards?

Has anyone seen any reasoning for why Ferrari put Leclerc on Mediums for the final 13 laps? I'd have expected the softs to last that long and give him enough advantage to catch Verstappen, so does it imply the Ferrari was devouring its tyres and they didn't think softs would last 13 laps to the end of the Grand Prix?

i believe they had only left a couple of used softs, and the softs weren't that good as the hard tyres

Interesting, since Red Bull put Gasly onto the Softs (based on Pirelli's tyre chart they also only had used sets left) - but I guess Red Bull were only going for a glory run and didn't have to worry about them dropping off a cliff afterwards?

exactly.... RB put Gasly on the soft tyre with only 3-4 laps to go, he had a gap behind him that was enough to do this so he could take the fastest lap (guess it was more to secure that 1 point, that would have gone to Vettel)

His commentary is usually knowledgeable and on point, he is the most recent world champion (other than Hamilton), the only commentator who has raced against the majority of the current grid, and who has personal experience with modern F1. He understands strategy and the mental strain drivers are under. I can’t think of anyone better qualified for the job.

He's usually pretty decent, but he dropped the ball on one of his videos earlier this weekend.

He said that Mercedes had run an illegal FW in the FP sessions (they didn't, they modified it to be compliant before FP1) and said they would have to revert back to their old Bahrain spec (again, clearly this wasn't the case).

The fact that he was so wide of the mark on this topic suggested to me that Nico wasn't as well-connected with Merc as he had been in the past.

Next, in the same video, after watching FP2, he concluded that Ferrari looked the strongest on race pace. It was the first video I've seen from him where he didn't do any research whatsoever.

Hopefully this was a blip and he doesn't just start churning out low-quality content just to get clicks.

"Hamilton and fast off the line starts are like oil and water." - TAG, just yesterday.

I'm on my second helping of humble pie. The race was a bit Meh. Like Melbourne, it was over after the first half lap. That being said, it's crazy insane how close the bulk of the midfield is in terms of performance, and who comes out on top on any given Sunday is going to come down to getting the car set up right.

Verstappen is a very good driver. I still think he's a arrogant spoiled brat but that's besides the point. He's a racing driver's racing driver. I was great seeing him fight for something that was just too far out of reach today but he was still pushing. It's a shame that Honda and Renault are fighting so hard to see who's got the 4th best PU.

"Hamilton and fast off the line starts are like oil and water." - TAG, just yesterday.

I'm on my second helping of humble pie. The race was a bit Meh. Like Melbourne, it was over after the first half lap. That being said, it's crazy insane how close the bulk of the midfield is in terms of performance, and who comes out on top on any given Sunday is going to come down to getting the car set up right.

Verstappen is a very good driver. I still think he's a arrogant spoiled brat but that's besides the point. He's a racing driver's racing driver. I was great seeing him fight for something that was just too far out of reach today but he was still pushing. It's a shame that Honda and Renault are fighting so hard to see who's got the 4th best PU.

I think yes 50% setup, 35% getting that killer qualy lap in that has a few tenths in driver performance above their rivals, and 15% getting a great start. I'm glad there are so many driver changes and rookies combined with this great midfield battle... the lack of battle for 1st is depressing so at least we have the midfield battle to appreciate. Good that F1 coverage these days shows the midfield battles far better than most racing TV coverage did for most of my life up to now.

Last edited by Brenton on Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

His commentary is usually knowledgeable and on point, he is the most recent world champion (other than Hamilton), the only commentator who has raced against the majority of the current grid, and who has personal experience with modern F1. He understands strategy and the mental strain drivers are under. I can’t think of anyone better qualified for the job.

I don't either for the most part.

I think he just rubs some people the wrong way. It's why in the whole Hamilton battle he wasn't too likeable but I don't think he put absolutely everything into beating Hamilton. His whole life revolved around it whilst Lewis probably gives 80% of his attention to F1, the rest is his life. Rosberg knew the only way he was winning was sacrificing everything, even looking after his newborn to win.

He got his luck but I think he deserved it. He gave Hamilton a good battle for years and that's hard to do against this generations top driver.

His insight and contacts because of his status in the game is fascinating at times. He sometimes I think says stuff for a reaction.... I think he's extremely methodical and logical which is why he did well against Hamilton because he used to study Lewis and copy him. I think in working in press he understands if he says x he gets y. So he just says it.

After this race i can solemnly say Vettel is a lower level than Hamilton. How can a four time champ be so troubled by two juniors not just in one season but two? Vettel needs to get his game up and fast.

"The true champions are also great men. They are capable of making difficult decisions, of admitting their mistakes and of pushing harder than before when they get up from a fall."

His commentary is usually knowledgeable and on point, he is the most recent world champion (other than Hamilton), the only commentator who has raced against the majority of the current grid, and who has personal experience with modern F1. He understands strategy and the mental strain drivers are under. I can’t think of anyone better qualified for the job.

I'll tell you what I don't like; In most of his commentary, he has a bit of a sensationalist tone and is quite vocal in his criticism. He also appears to be very opinionated. I much prefer the 'tone' and IMO more objective/neutral journalism from ex-drivers such as Karun Chandhok and Jolyon Palmer to name two. There's also something about Rosbergs 'smirk' that just rubs me the wrong way too.

Despite that though, I respect that as a very recent F1 driver, race-winner and WDC champion at Mercedes, he has a lot of very valuable insights and information some others lack. That however doesn't exclude that quite a bit that he posts on his Youtube channel and on the RTL broadcast (yes I watch them) isn't a lot of drivel too.

Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II#Team44 supporter